> [djh previously] > To your first one - Mental illness is evidence of Lila following Dynamic > Quality because without Dynamic Quality Lila is stuck in bad cultural > patterns. > > [Arlo] > To be clear, is 'mental illness' always evidence of this? All forms of mental > illness?
[djh] I'm not sure. There seems to be some biologically caused mental illness as well. > [djh previously] > To your second question - in this context mental illness does indeed evidence > the point at which someone stops following Dynamic Quality and settles into > their own contradictory cultural static patterns. > > [Arlo] > This directly contradicts your previous statement. So, again, to be clear, is > mental illness evidence of Dynamic Quality or the point at which they stop? [djh] I see what you're saying now. I thought my Venn diagram example made it clear that mental illness isn't always evidence of Dynamic Quality. That said, the original confusion seems to be my doing. To reiterate - Phaedrus and Lila demonstrate two different types of mental illness. Phaedrus was mentally ill by his exclusive value of Dynamic Quality and quite explicit rejection of static patterns while Lila was mentally ill by the exclusive valuing of her own insane patterns. > [djh previously] > But there is another type of mental illness. The mental illness with which > Phaedrus was afflicted. Phaedrus was mentally ill because he rejected static > patterns explicitly. > > [Arlo] > So the two forms of mental illness are contrasted by whether are not patterns > are *explicitly* rejected? [djh] They are contrasted by being related to different values. As stated - in one type of mental illness there is an explicit rejection of static patterns altogether, while in the other there is the exclusive valuing of crazy static patterns and thus ignored contradiction with current cultural patterns. > [djh previously] > I feel uneasy about saying that Phaedrus pursuit of Dynamic Quality 'ended' > for after he checked out of the hospital he wrote two great books which were > the result of very much following Dynamic Quality. > > [Arlo] > *After* he checked out the hospital? Above you said that mental illness is > the point at which someone stops following Dynamic Quality. As I see it, you > know have three separate claims: (1) mental illness is evidence a person is > driven by Dynamic Quality, (2) mental illness is evidence a person has > stopped being driven by Dynamic Quality, and now (3) recovery from mental > illness is evidence that a person has stopped being driven by Dynamic Quality. [djh] Thanks for making this clear. It makes it much easier. Anyway the first two points are kind of right and the last one I disagree with. I'll re-iterate each point here.. 1) Mental illness is evidence a person in driven by DQ because unless they are insane when born, they will at some point value the static patterns of the culture and be a part of that culture. In Lila's case she's taken on a burden of the culture by the death of her child and it is arguably this burden which causes her insanity. It is too much for her to deal with. If we think of a very sane person as an empty tea cup - Lila's tea cup would be overflowing with karma of the death of her child. Without the change agent of Dynamic Quality, Lila would be stuck with an overflowing tea cup and the burdens brought about by it. As RMP explains - Lila has three options… One) Be stuck with the patterns of the culture and the overflowing cup. Two) Do what she does in the book and imagine up a new empty cup and value that - or Three) see the DQ she is working towards, reject the imagined cup and the overflowing cup and just exist in some sort of undefined state not really valuing one cup or the other.. "So the third possibility that Phaedrus was hoping for was that by some miracle of understanding Lila could avoid all the patterns, her own and the culture's, see the Dynamic Quality she's working toward and then come back and handle all this mess without being destroyed by it." 2) Lila's mental illness is evidence she has stopped being driven by DQ because when she was at her most crazy, she was no longer suffering through the pain brought about by changing her patterns. Static patterns don't like to change - it's against their nature. "That's why the absence of suffering last night seemed so ominous and her change to what looked like suffering today gave Phaedrus a feeling she was getting better. If you eliminate suffering from this world you eliminate life. There's no evolution. Those species that don't suffer don't survive. Suffering is the negative face of the Quality that drives the whole process. All these battles between patterns of evolution go on within suffering individuals like Lila." 3) Recovery from mental illness is not evidence that a person has stopped being driven by DQ. The only mistake Phaedrus made (which is what made him crazy) was his explicit valuing of DQ to the detriment of static patterns. He just did not value static patterns at all.. Even basic social ones like going to the bathroom.. This is a good reason to lock someone up. > [djh previously] > By explicitly not caring for static patterns - this put Phaedrus in conflict > with the static patterns of the culture. Which brings us to your requested > example where the rejection of cultural values that does not lead to a > conflict with the culture. > > [Arlo] > So really 'conflict' for you only occurs at the point of 'explicit' action? > You believe a person can 'reject' patterns but still abide by them at the > same time. Like in my example, where I say "I reject speed limits" but > continue to obey them. As I said, I think this misses what 'conflict' and > 'rejection' mean. [djh] In our Western understanding of these terms it does yes. But in the East there is the 'concept' of Mu. Mu rejects yes and no but is still not in conflict with either.. > [djh previously] > Basically what this boils down to is can Dynamic Quality and static quality > exist together without contradiction? > > [Arlo] > I have no idea what to make of this question. "Static quality" is the wake of > "Dynamic Quality", and it is because of their conflicting nature that > patterns of value evolve. [djh] But Arlo, as stated in the quote provided RMP explicitly says that in the East sq and DQ often exist harmoniously together. "Phaedrus thought that Oriental social cohesiveness and ability to work long hard hours without complaint was not a genetic characteristic but a cultural one. It resulted from the working out, centuries ago, of the problem of dharma and the way in which it combines freedom and ritual. In the West progress seems to proceed by a series of spasms of alternating freedom and ritual. A revolution of freedom against old rituals produces a new order, which soon becomes another old ritual for the next generation to revolt against, on and on. In the Orient there are plenty of conflicts but historically this particular kind of conflict has not been as dominant. PHAEDRUS THOUGHT IT WAS BECAUSE DHARMA INCLUDES BOTH STATIC AND DYNAMIC QUALITY WITHOUT CONTRADICTION. For example, you would guess from the literature on Zen and its insistence on discovering the 'unwritten dharma' that it would be intensely anti-ritualistic, since ritual is the 'written dharma.' But that isn't the case. The Zen monk's daily life is nothing but one ritual after another, hour after hour, day after day, all his life. They don't tell him to shatter those static patterns to discover the unwritten dharma. They want him to get those patterns perfect! The explanation for this contradiction is the belief that you do not free yourself from static patterns by fighting them with other contrary static patterns. That is sometimes called 'bad karma chasing its tail.' You free yourself from static patterns by putting them to sleep. That is, you master them with such proficiency that they become an unconscious part of your nature. You get so used to them you completely forget them and they are gone. There in the center of the most monotonous boredom of static ritualistic patterns the Dynamic freedom is found." To reiterate - a ritual could be going at the speed limit. It is possible to be free of the speed limit while following this ritual! > [djh] > Being from the West which mostly ignores DQ, it's not surprising that we > immediately think of a rejection as something which implies conflict. > > [Arlo] > No, I think the impact of the West is in thinking that 'implicit' rejection > does not count as 'conflict'. Like the Cold War was not a conflict because > there was no explicit fighting. [djh] I'm talking about a more fundamental difference at the level of logic and the law of the excluded middle. Traditionally the West supports the law of the excluded middle while the East does not. An example of this is the 'concept' of Mu. > [djh] > As an example of how new static patterns can exist that aren't in conflict > with the old ones I would provide the MOQ itself. > > [Arlo] > I'd disagree. The two premises of the metaphysical systems are in conflict, > just because one subsumes another rather than eradicate it does not mean > there is no conflict. Just look at some of the hostility Pirsig has > encountered, in both academia and the popular press, and tell me that there > is no conflict between his ideas and the ideas he is rejecting. [djh] That conflict is due to a misunderstand rather than any real conflict. "Yes, the MOQ only contradicts the SOM denial that value exists in the real world. The MOQ says it does. Thus the MOQ is an expansion of existing knowledge, not a denial of existing knowledge." - RMP in Lila's Child. In other words they are fighting an imagined enemy. The MOQ incorporates the quality of SOM within a larger, better, Metaphysical system. > [djh previously] > From someone else's objective perspective who is watching you drive at the > speed limit we could say that you are not rejecting speed limits but it > really depends on whether you, Arlo, empirically, pragmatically reject speed > limits. And if you do reject speed limits - can you reject them and still > abide by them? > > [Arlo] > These two comments are contradictory. First, you say that rejection must be > both empirical and pragamatic. Second, you imply that rejection does not > depend on acting out that rejection. > > I'd argue that rejection of patterns is evidenced by conflict with those > patterns. That 'conflict' can appear in many forms, I can devote my life to > petitioning the government to abandon speed limits, or I can disregard them > and find myself in jail. In either case, 'rejection' is demonstrable in the > form of conflict. In the first case, I am making a conscience decision that > my rejection is better served by conflict aimed at the legal system, an act > that has a greater chance to achieve my goal of eliminating speed limits. [djh] How do you truly reject something? Why do we reject something? We reject things to be free from them. I think by simply thinking something is bad or wrong and creating an alternative thing in direct opposition to that original thing is a form of static valuing of that thing which you are rejecting and thus does not lead to complete freedom from that thing. To completely reject something you needn't even think of that thing. To truly free yourself from speed limits or static patterns is to no longer have to think about speed limits or any static patterns. That is true freedom and rejection. And the way you truly free yourself from static patterns is by getting them perfect and not by creating alternative contrary patterns (such as going above the speed limit).. "The explanation for this contradiction is the belief that you do not free yourself from static patterns by fighting them with other contrary static patterns. That is sometimes called 'bad karma chasing its tail.' You free yourself from static patterns by putting them to sleep. That is, you master them with such proficiency that they become an unconscious part of your nature. You get so used to them you completely forget them and they are gone. There in the center of the most monotonous boredom of static ritualistic patterns the Dynamic freedom is found." - RMP > [djh previously] > I agree that we cannot say whether something is or isn't categorically better > unless there is a creation of something better. But privileging DQ is a > mistake? The statement "rejecting static patterns is moral" - is wrong? The > Code of Art claims that DQ is above sq. Is the Code of Art a mistake? > > [Arlo] > I do not think the Code of Art is simply "reject static patterns". I think > the Code of Art is "create better static patterns". [djh] You cannot create better static patterns without 'killing' or rejecting the original patterns. It is this 'killing' or rejection which is the following of Dynamic Quality which creates better patterns to begin with. The Code of Art is about a balance between static quality and Dynamic Quality and when all else is equal it is moral to to that *undefined* better thing. > [djh previously] > The example you give of destroying biological patterns (and in the process > someone capable of responding to DQ) is some very specific ugly static > quality act and not an actual rejection of static quality. > > [Arlo] > Because biological patterns are not static quality? If the moral path is to > simply, as you say, "reject static patterns", does this mean only social and > intellectual patterns? [djh] No not because biological patterns are not static quality but because an act such as suicide can be found in an encyclopaedia and is just low biological quality and not an actual rejection or killing of static patterns. Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org/md/archives.html
